Why are the Republicans against Gonzalez being sworn in?

[Chadman]

Whether you think the NSA spying issue is a big deal or not, why are the Republicans so adamantly against Gonzalez testifying under oath? From what I have seen, he even offered to be under oath. His current testimony partially deals with past under-oath testimony.

In a matter of American Security, as an American, don't you think it's important to have our officials be held legally responsible for their actions, especially when making assessments and rulings about the law and security?

Of course he avoided specific questions that are at the heart of the matter, but that is to be expected. But why are the Republicans so adamantly against him being under oath?

Republicans certainly insisted on Janet Reno being under oath when tesitifying about Bill Clinton-related issues. This isn't the real issue, but I thought I'd throw it in for discussion, because DTB probably won't mention that in THIS thread...

 

[Master Capper]

Whom do the Republicans ever put under oath? We have a summit on the oil companies gouging the consumers and we don't even put them under oath.....this is the most corrupt Congress that I have seen in my lifetime so much cronyism and back scratching it's no wonder nothing gets done.

 

[gardenweasel]

maybe because gonzales and the administration adamantly believe and have testified that the nsa wiretapping issue is totally legal....and,

the white house council and the justice dept along with some legal scholars agree....

other legal scholars disagree...along with the aclu,i`m sure...

it might be a way of covering your ass legally...

not sure who decides the issue...maybe the supreme court...

might just be a c.y.a. issue...

 

[djv]

Are we sure his info given when being confirmed was not off a little. So the way to avoid, and the out as they say is. No swearing in now. I'm sure they don't need to fight perjury right now.
But hey give the Reb's credit they did ask a few tough questions.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Not familiar with what your speaking of Chad but will look into it--sounds interesting--but off hand would say always a chance of people going over every sentence with fine tooth comb--unless you take the "fail to recall approach" under oath like Bill (267 times) and Hilliary (250 times). Not much they can stick you with other than cronic case of Alzeihmers

 

[Chadman]

My question, essentially, was rhetorical. I have a pretty good idea why the Republicans did not want him sworn in. They have plenty of point people on this issue offering up various "informative" commentaries on this issue, many which have been disproven straighforwardly and quickly. The smokescreen is pretty large on this one...and I'm sure the fellas and fellates don't want him under oath if they can "muster the votes" to keep it from happening. Definitely gives him/them more wiggle room and less to nail him/them on.

I agree, they have maintained it is all ok. That really is not the issue, in my mind. Asking the wolves if the chickens are safe really is not my idea of a clear picture of the situation.